Trump and his Republican colleagues must do welfare reform (ie cut welfare spending) next. Or the US will one day become like Venezuela.

To clarify, then by "welfare" you're referring to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, not to programmes like AFDC and SNAP.

You heard it here first: the Republicans don't have the political will to touch those programmes, and the Democrats don't have any interest in doing so.

Not to mention the latest crop of defence white elephants, farm subsides and fat cat bailouts!

Strange: I notice that whenever cass thinks "welfare reform" he always seems to lobby to have survival money taken away from the poor - not the removal of unwonted state subsidies from wealthy and powerful corporations.

At least the corporates are creating wealth. But I agree that corporate welfare should be eradicated. It distorts the market. A step has been taken with the Tax Reform Bill, as I explained above.

Trump and his Republican colleagues must do welfare reform (ie cut welfare spending) next. Or the US will one day become like Venezuela.

To clarify, then by "welfare" you're referring to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, not to programmes like AFDC and SNAP.

You heard it here first: the Republicans don't have the political will to touch those programmes, and the Democrats don't have any interest in doing so.

Not to mention the latest crop of defence white elephants, farm subsides and fat cat bailouts!

Strange: I notice that whenever cass thinks "welfare reform" he always seems to lobby to have survival money taken away from the poor - not the removal of unwonted state subsidies from wealthy and powerful corporations.

At least the corporates are creating wealth. But I agree that corporate welfare should be eradicated. It distorts the market. A step has been taken with the Tax Reform Bill, as I explained above.

Corporations actually create poor.

That's the Marxist view which has been proven false. The idea Marx gave birth to was that the capitalists exploit the working class. The owners, through their firms, get rich out of the labor of the workers. To them, it is a zero-sum game. The more the boss gets, the less the workers get.

This idea was widespread in the 1950s and 1960s when empires decolonized. The independence leaders studied in top British and French Universities and went home miseducated with such ideas. People like Nkrumah, Nyrere, Nehru and even Lee Kuan Yew all started out as Socialists. But LKY quickly realized that it was all nonsense. The others remained Socialists.

So they had this idea that the British and French corporates in their newly independent countries were exploiting their people. These companies were no longer welcome. Most were nationalized or at least made to feel unwelcomed. Singapore did the opposite. Instead of nationalizing them, it welcomed them. Singapore saw that they brought wealth, not poverty to its people. The rest is history. Today, most of the world welcome foreign investments.

Closer to your home, notice that after the Trump tax cuts, Walmart and others have given out bonuses. Once you make capital welcome by cutting taxes, the workers benefit.

To clarify, then by "welfare" you're referring to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, not to programmes like AFDC and SNAP.

You heard it here first: the Republicans don't have the political will to touch those programmes, and the Democrats don't have any interest in doing so.

Not to mention the latest crop of defence white elephants, farm subsides and fat cat bailouts!

Strange: I notice that whenever cass thinks "welfare reform" he always seems to lobby to have survival money taken away from the poor - not the removal of unwonted state subsidies from wealthy and powerful corporations.

At least the corporates are creating wealth. But I agree that corporate welfare should be eradicated. It distorts the market. A step has been taken with the Tax Reform Bill, as I explained above.

Corporations actually create poor.

That's the Marxist view which has been proven false. The idea Marx gave birth to was that the capitalists exploit the working class. The owners, through their firms, get rich out of the labor of the workers. To them, it is a zero-sum game. The more the boss gets, the less the workers get.

This idea was widespread in the 1950s and 1960s when empires decolonized. The independence leaders studied in top British and French Universities and went home miseducated with such ideas. People like Nkrumah, Nyrere, Nehru and even Lee Kuan Yew all started out as Socialists. But LKY quickly realized that it was all nonsense. The others remained Socialists.

So they had this idea that the British and French corporates in their newly independent countries were exploiting their people. These companies were no longer welcome. Most were nationalized or at least made to feel unwelcomed. Singapore did the opposite. Instead of nationalizing them, it welcomed them. Singapore saw that they brought wealth, not poverty to its people. The rest is history. Today, most of the world welcome foreign investments.

Closer to your home, notice that after the Trump tax cuts, Walmart and others have given out bonuses. Once you make capital welcome by cutting taxes, the workers benefit.

Re: What happens when Socialists run out of other people's money

The idea Marx gave birth to was that the capitalists exploit the working class. The owners, through their firms, get rich out of the labor of the workers.

I question whether Marx "gave birth" to that idea at all. In his day there would have been no shortage of workers and even some middle class sympathizers who had already arrived at the same conclusion.

Marx merely put down on paper, crystallised into clear thinking, that which many people would already have observed at the time.

Exploitation of employees by employers still happens even in the advanced Western countries (even in my own) but is no longer anything like as blatant or as widespread as it was because it has since been challenged. We now have humane labour laws (a regulated workplace) and employees' organisations that have driven exploitation into the shadows.

I have mixed with working people all of my life. Their average level as education may not be as high as yours but I can assure you they are not dumb. They are usually quick to know when they are being done over by someone.

Re: What happens when Socialists run out of other people's money

The idea Marx gave birth to was that the capitalists exploit the working class. The owners, through their firms, get rich out of the labor of the workers.

I question whether Marx "gave birth" to that idea at all. In his day there would have been no shortage of workers and even some middle class sympathizers who had already arrived at the same conclusion.

Marx merely put down on paper, crystallised into clear thinking, that which many people would already have observed at the time.

Exploitation of employees by employers still happens even in the advanced Western countries (even in my own) but is no longer anything like as blatant or as widespread as it was because it has since been challenged. We now have humane labour laws (a regulated workplace) and employees' organisations that have driven exploitation into the shadows.

I have mixed with working people all of my life. Their average level as education may not be as high as yours but I can assure you they are not dumb. They are usually quick to know when they are being done over by someone.

The idea that Marx and the average worker believed in was false. It may seem obvious that the more you pay workers, the less profit the boss gets. But it is not true because the story does not end there. It is not a zero-sum game or a adversarial relationship. The capitalist and his employees are actually partners to beat the competition.

If they are unable to sell their products or services at a profit, the company goes broke and the workers are out of a job. So if the unions demand unrealistic wages and working conditions, the company cannot make a profit. That's how Detroit got ruined. See the video.

The owner has alternatives to deploying his capital. He can:

1)Spend the money instead of investing in a business in which case he does not create jobs for workers
2)put the money in the bank to earn interest. Or bonds. Or publicly traded stocks. Or invest in real estate and earn rental income.
3)Start a business with his capital.

He has to decide which option is best for him. So if he cannot make a decent return as compared to his alternatives, he will shut down the business.

Meanwhile, the worker also has options. His employer is not the only employer in town. There will be other employers that he can sell his services to. So if someone else is willing to pay a higher salary or give him better working conditions, he will resign and work elsewhere.

The company has to deal with the customers who also have options. This is not the only company that can provide the product he wishes to buy. If someone else can give him the same product at a lower price or better quality, he will shop elsewhere.

The more profitable the company is, the more the owner can afford to pay his employees. Trump's corprate tax cuts increase the after-tax profit of US companies. So many have responded by upping wages and giving out bonuses. This is not done out of altruism. It is done out of business necessity. Other companies are doing the same and they wish to retain their workers. Remember, companies that can afford to pay the highest wage can pick the best emplyees that will come flocking to seek a job.

So Marx was wrong. You cannot exploit the workers because exploited workers will resign and work for someone who is willing to pay more and give better working conditions. But workers have to up their game. The best workers will go to the companies that pay the best wage. Companies that pay the best wages are the ones who are the most profitable. So it is in the interest of workers to help the company make a worthwhile profit.

Re: What happens when Socialists run out of other people's money

Cass; how do you bloody-well know what the average worker believes? You have never given me the impression that you have ever mixed much with these. At least never enough to develop empathy with working people. You are probably unaware of it but virtually every one of your posts that I have ever read is literally steeped in class prejudice.

The capitalist and his employees are actually partners to beat the competition.

Herein lies the rub cassowary - the competition! When the going gets tough and the management looks for cost-cutting measures, the capitalist/employer's temptation is to screw the workers by making at least some redundant; putting others on shorter hours and/or reducing hourly pay rates. In all cases it means an oftentimes tragic loss of income to employees. The typical free enterprise business in a Western country is still structured like an old fashioned absolute monarchy (i.e. a royal tyranny where the boss is King Shit) and not (as your post romantically alludes to) a co-operative commonwealth where both the risks and rewards are equably shared.